kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (01/17/90)
<>
Thanks for the information, Carl. A number of anti-treaty groups
have organized to fight the Indian's rights. The groups have used
a variety of propaganda techniques to gain support. They have
claimed that in the interest of "Equal Rights for Everyone", no
group should have "extra rights". They have claimed that the
Indians' fishing will cause a decline in the number of fish,
specifically walleye, that exist in the streams, and used this
claim to insinuate that conservationists should oppose the Indians
and that sports fishers should oppose the Indians and that people
in the resort business should oppose the Indians.
The facts are that less than 2% of the fish caught in Wisconsin
were taken by Indians in 1988 and 1989. The remaining 98% are
taken by sports fishers. If anyone wants to complain about the
number of fish taken, the sports fishers are the major component
to address.
The "equal rights" claim shows an ignorance of both history and
law. American Indians are *not* legally just like any other
citizen. Indians have a special legal status as tribes and as
individuals. This status is the result of an invasion of
immigrants upon their lands and the subsequent treaties that,
unfair as they might be, are the only attempt to insure that the
indigenous people of America are treated justly.
Treaties are the supreme law of the land, having precedence
over the constitution. To suggest that non-Indians have the same
rights to lands protected by Indian treaties is to suggest that
it's ok to renege on an agreement.
To encourage the state and federal governments to try to break
treaties or buy out treaty rights is to encourage them to engage
in illegal activity, compromise their credibility and deny their
integrity. Denying Indian treaties is as bad as denying treaties
with the Soviet Union or any other sovereign nation. It is
unethical to fail to honor a treaty with another nation just
because that nation has a smaller population. Otherwise, one is
subscribing to a code of ethics that "might makes right" and is
therefore denying the possibility of ever living in peace.
Although anti-treaty groups have appealed to such noble concepts
as equal rights and conservation, their actions throughout their
campaigns have been marked by violence, including pipe-bombs, and
racial hatred.
The true nature of anti-treaty groups such as Equal Rights for
Everyone, Protect American's Rights and Resources (PARR) and Stop
Treaty Abuse (STA) became apparent in 1989 when they were joined
in their movement by the Aryan Nation.
If anyone is concerned about this and other racist movements
against Indians, please write to Congress and also please
subscribe to NativeNet by sending email to:
gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
because maybe we can help get something organized for April 1990.
From _News from Indian Country: The Journal_, December, 1989:
Minocqua, Wisconsin - Anti-Treaty groups plan to hold their
national convention in Washington D.C. during February of 1990.
The action is part of a stepped-up campaign of visability [sic] to
push Congress on several major treaty abrogation bills that have
been recently introduced. The convention will be hosted by
Citizens for Equal Rights Alliance (CERA) a Montana based
anti-treaty group in cooperation with PARR, other groups across
the country. James Klauser, Wisconsin Govonors [sic] office
treaty negotiator has been invited to attend.
The groups are also planning to hold a spring rally in
Minocqua, Wisconsin Saturday, April 14th.
--
Krista A.
HONOR Our Neighbors' Original Rights!byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)
In article <12685@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: > Thanks for the information, Carl. A number of anti-treaty groups > have organized to fight the Indian's rights. Why is it right that people whose ancestors lived here before ancestors of other people should have some kind of "extra rights" because of their race? Shouldn't indians have all the same-but-no-more rights as anyone else? > The groups have used > a variety of propaganda techniques to gain support. They have > claimed that in the interest of "Equal Rights for Everyone", no > group should have "extra rights". What is invalid about claims like those? Would you argue if I said that you have fewer rights than someone else? [ Stuff about fishing rates deleted ] > The "equal rights" claim shows an ignorance of both history and > law. American Indians are *not* legally just like any other > citizen. Indians have a special legal status as tribes and as > individuals. It is true that in the past indians have been granted extra rights (as well as been denied some others that the rest of us enjoy). The question at hand is whether this is the way it should be. A hundred years ago (roughly) we had laws that gave special status to slaves too (we even had a few of them 20 years ago), were those laws proper? One who accuses others of ignorance of historical facts should know that the US was founded on the idea that all people have equal rights and should not be treated differently based on irrelevant factors such as ancestry. > This status is the result of an invasion of > immigrants upon their lands and the subsequent treaties that, > unfair as they might be, are the only attempt to insure that the > indigenous people of America are treated justly. Lots of laws in the past have been unjust (slavery laws for example) and they were repealed. Why should indian beneficiaries of unjust laws get off the hook any easier than slave owners did? (I'm not equating indians with slave owners morally, but they are both beneficiaries of unjust laws). > Treaties are the supreme law of the land, having precedence > over the constitution. To suggest that non-Indians have the same > rights to lands protected by Indian treaties is to suggest that > it's ok to renege on an agreement. You mean like the agreements that ensured that no blacks could move into your neighborhood? I don't claim that the issue is simple, but the perspective that indian citizens are not given "equal protection under the law" (sometimes that benefits them, other times not) deserves some deep consideration don't you think? > To encourage the state and federal governments to try to break > treaties or buy out treaty rights is to encourage them to engage > in illegal activity, compromise their credibility and deny their > integrity. How does that differ in principle from this statement? "To encourage the state and federal governments to try to break ownership of legally purchased slaves is to encourage them to engage in illegal activity, compromise their credibility and deny their integrity." > Denying Indian treaties is as bad as denying treaties > with the Soviet Union or any other sovereign nation. It is > unethical to fail to honor a treaty with another nation just > because that nation has a smaller population. Otherwise, one is > subscribing to a code of ethics that "might makes right" and is > therefore denying the possibility of ever living in peace. The basis for breaking such treaties would not be "might makes right", it would be "all men are created equal". > Although anti-treaty groups have appealed to such noble concepts > as equal rights and conservation, their actions throughout their > campaigns have been marked by violence, including pipe-bombs, and > racial hatred. These are of course wrong, and should be condemned by all interested (and uninterested) parties. Don't lump everyone who is skeptical of indian claims to extra rights into that mold, it's not accurate. > The true nature of anti-treaty groups such as Equal Rights for > Everyone, Protect American's Rights and Resources (PARR) and Stop > Treaty Abuse (STA) became apparent in 1989 when they were joined > in their movement by the Aryan Nation. If that's true, it does seem to being questions about their motives doesn't it? Those organizations aside, there are important moral and philosophical points to be discussed on this issue. I'd rather discuss those than whether violent creeps agree with one side of the issue or another. > If anyone is concerned about this and other racist movements > against Indians, please write to Congress and also please > subscribe to NativeNet by sending email to: > gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us If the issue of racist movements arises, I'll be the first to defend indians or anyone else. I think I'll subscribe. > because maybe we can help get something organized for April 1990. [ Stuff about anti-treaty rally deleted ] > HONOR Our Neighbors' Original Rights! As long as you are talking about universal rights, you are right, if you are talking about rights based on race, you had better be ready for a lot of disagreement. Brian -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (01/20/90)
In article <523@smcnet.UUCP> byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) writes: >Why is it right that people whose ancestors lived here before >ancestors of other people should have some kind of "extra rights" >because of their race? Shouldn't indians have all the same-but-no-more >rights as anyone else? They don't have extra rights because of their race. They have extra rights because they're descended from people who signed a treaty with the U.S. government. In exchange for land "owned" (squatters rights?) by the Native American tribes, the government gave the Native Americans certain rights (such as the right to continue hunting and fishing on non-reservation lands). The treaties were presumably written in such a way that these rights pass on to the descendants of the original signatories (otherwise there wouldn't be all this fuss). >> They [anti-treaty groups] have >> claimed that in the interest of "Equal Rights for Everyone", no >> group should have "extra rights". > >What is invalid about claims like those? Would you argue if I said >that you have fewer rights than someone else? It depends on what's meant by rights. I *don't* have the right to walk into your house and take out some furniture to sell, say--that's just theft. On the other hand, if you were married (and in a marital property state), your wife would have that right. Similarly, if I agreed with a friend of mine that he could use my house during the summer, in exchange for my use of his summer cabin, I don't feel that the average person on the street should be allowed to use my house, just because my friend is. After all, we made a bargain and traded our rights, in a sense. >A hundred >years ago (roughly) we had laws that gave special status to slaves too >(we even had a few of them 20 years ago), were those laws proper? The issues in question (i.e. fishing rights) aren't just laws--if they were, they could easily be overturned. They're treaties: agreed to by both parties. If both parties agree to dissolve the treaties, fine; I see no problem with that. >the US was founded on the idea that all people have equal rights >and should not be treated differently based on irrelevant factors >such as ancestry. Native Americans are not being treated differently based on their race; they're being treated differently because their ancestors were living here first, and agreed to give the newcomers some of "their" land. Actually, they aren't really being treated differently at all--treaties and contracts apply to all Americans. My ancestors didn't have something valuable to give to the government, so they didn't get any special rights (though they did get free rail passage in exchange for opening farmland). I don't see a contradiction. >You mean like the agreements that ensured that no blacks could >move into your neighborhood? When did the blacks sign these agreements? >As long as you are talking about universal rights, you are right, if you >are talking about rights based on race, you had better be ready for a >lot of disagreement. As I pointed out earlier, these rights aren't based on race. They're based on an agreement made with their ancestors. Not the same thing. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
jtk@lakesys.lakesys.com (Joseph T. Klein) (01/20/90)
I find it hard to understand why people do not understand the meaning of 'supreme law of the land.' For the uneducated, the scope of a treaty is defined in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution. As for `All men are created equal,' that is from the declaration of independance, and is not a part of a document within the body of American law. The rights of Wisconsin Native Americans are defined by treaty. A treaty is the 'law of the land... laws of the state not withstanding.' Wisconsin is subject to the Constitution. Wisconsin (and it's citizens) have no right to break the treaty. If you claim otherwise, you are an enemy of the Constitution! -- : jtk@lakesys.lakesys.com : "He is a dreamer; : -- Joseph T. Klein -- : Let us leave him:-pass." :--------------------------------------: -- William Shakespeare : "No Mom; that's UNIX, NOT EUNUCHS!!" : Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 2
byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/20/90)
Actually, I agree with the view that if the grants of fishing rights are given to specific individuals (with the ability of future generations to inherit them) then those rights to "property" should be honored. Some of those agreements may have been ill-advised for one reason or another, but they should be abided by. What I oppose is granting _racial_ rights, which has been done in some cases. It's not the race that matters, it's the ownership of land or other property rights that does. Such ownership can only be held by individuals, not races. Does that seem like a reasonable basis for discussion? Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-